Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral signal beyond that: it lists the returned validation facets and explicitly disclaims side effects (no generation, export or delivery), and 'accessible campaign' hints at access scoping. It does not say what happens for an inaccessible/nonexistent id, which keeps it off a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences: what it checks, what it returns, and how to use it versus what it does not do. Front-loaded with the operation and scope, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return structures — and it already names the key fields, plus annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. For a single-UUID read tool, nothing essential needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema documents the single 'id' parameter only via a UUID regex with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies it is a campaign id (not a job or asset id) and that it must reference an accessible campaign, which adds some meaning, but no format or lookup guidance beyond the pattern already in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check the current fixed-video configuration of an accessible campaign by campaign id') and enumerates exactly what comes back: validation status, format, personalization support, generation availability and workspace readiness. It is clearly not a generic getter, but it never names the adjacent siblings (campaigns_get, campaign_production_get) that an agent might confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use this read to identify whether setup permits generation' gives a concrete decision context, and 'it does not start generation, export or delivery' rules out misuse as an action trigger. It stops short of naming which sibling to call instead for mutation or for full campaign detail, so the alternative-selection guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.